-messenjah of one
It wouldn't mean much of anything to someone who doesn't believe in God
If you will not discuss the consequences of your position then why quote TA at all? Since whether his arguements are valid or not mean nothing anyway since the conclusion is established first and thus avoids the hard work of actually thinking about the position you assert.
It matters not if Aquinas is even wrong since you already have decided that the belief is insurmountable by declining any possible notion that the belief is wrong to begin with.
He says that sacred doctrine is not argumentative for people that do not at least accept one of the articles of faith.
Well is that not a satisfying way of having others stifled right off the hop? First accept that something I say is true and do not waver in that acceptance and then you can see that my arguements hold. This is equivalent to saying that I can only argue if you allow me to demand a position be unquestionable and then even if the rest of my position is false you have already agreed to something of my arguement by default.
The reason for this is self explanatory as you see one cannot argue about something with someone else if one believes and one doesn't.
If it is so self explanatory I am going to call your bluff and have you actually give us the explanation part of self explanatory.
I do him an injustice by not simply reprinting his words..
Well that is a crock of bull. If you actually understand the man then it would be easy to express in your own words what he is getting at. Just because he has a page in history does not mean that his arguements are valid or even invalid. If you will not discuss the points of arguement he makes then I am afraid it probably means that his position is probably indefensible in some way.
™ Version 4.2
